Blaming a broken system and politicians is a method of shrugging responsibility. If you're the 20 something who can't afford a house, don't blame the bankers, blame the generation before you for acting so irresponsibly. The banking system is founded on the behaviours of the last 75 years - it's a reactive system that builds products based on the decisions people are making, that gives them what they want, and the bankers what the bankers want - in both cases that is money. The more money one asks for, the more the other is asking for.

Just about every 40-50 something I know that isn't in financial trouble, exercised a little thing known as restraint in the 80s and 90s, buying the 150k house instead of the 300k house. Now they likely nearly own a house which is much more valuable than they paid for it, and are financially secure, in addition to having gone on holiday every year.

Where it gets really ****ed up, is the Credit Default Swap system, and the reliance on rating agencies. Bankers got lazy, essentially, because by and large, people were paying off their debts. Thus they promised more, and then the ratings agencies slowed in giving out realistic information, whether that is due to corporate pressure, no-one really knows, but I think it's unlikely a bank would have actually wanted it to go pop. I could go on further with more detail but I don't think it's that much of interest.

TL;DR, Ratings Agencies are some of the most criminally responsible for the escalation of consumer debt, yet not a single one has been made accountable.

The blame for not being able to afford a house isn't necessarily entirely with the people before us. What has happened in the UK is that since the late 70s not enough housing has been built to keep up with population growth . This restriction in supply has led to house prices rising much faster when consumer lending is increased. The reason why none are being built is firstly that the green belt restriction push up building land prices for the sake of areas that don't deserve to be in the green belt.

For example 1000 homes are being contested in my constituency on land that is over grown, has next to no wildlife, used for dumping and is used for motor cross bikers. But it is being contested on the basis that it is green belt which brings me on to the second point.

The selfish middle class. No government will take action on housing in any serious way as the middle classes wouldn't want their homes devalued and landlords wouldn't want to be forced to charge cheaper rents (major cause of the 20bn spent on housing benefit). The political parties have to concentrate on satisfying the middle class to be elected as larger proportions vote compared to the working class.

Then it's the NIMBYs who don't want developments with eyesight or earshot.

It's a ridiculous situation where basically we are told that many people in this country are crippled by high housing costs, overcrowding and threat of homelessness, but we aren't going to do anything about it because we like to watch the scrub land grow and we don't want to make the middle classes feel less wealthy.

On your last point when I hear people talk of income inequality you notice the buck doesn't stop there deprivation wise.

It even creates an inequality of justice. People in banks have committed fraud (ie libor) on huge scales yet do not face justice. If that were a young working class man fiddling the system for more money fraudulently he would be rail roaded into prison when caught before you could say porridge. Also even when criminal cases are brought there is inequality in justice there. A wealthy man can buy a team of expensive lawyers to defend his case much better than someone who has a lawyer funded by the state. Through this the wealth get acquitted more and face shorter sentences.

Then there is inequality of education. 7% of people go through private education yet they take 50% of top jobs (as I remember from politics and economics a level). This is not necessarily due to the better education but is due to the old boys network. It is an abhorrent restriction on opportunity. Even still without private education being factored in those in better off areas monopolise the best schools.

Then there is inequality in the susceptibility to crime due to the poor being shoved in with the poor. This is being exacerbated by this government as they decrease housing benefit to the 30th %tile and have capped rises to below inflation (which in the rental sector is more like 5-8% as opposed to the 2.7% cpi inflation. This means rather than poor working, jobless and disabled people are not mixed with the middle classes but push into ghettoised areas where drug and violent crime becomes concentrated in one spot.

Then there is inequality of education. 7% of people go through private education yet they take 50% of top jobs (as I remember from politics and economics a level). This is not necessarily due to the better education but is due to the old boys network. It is an abhorrent restriction on opportunity. Even still without private education being factored in those in better off areas monopolise the best schools.

Really?

It is far far more to do with ethos, mental attitude and parenting than it is to do with actual 'smartness'. Private/public schools teach you self-confidence and that if you want to go and do something, you should be able to do so, and be encouraged to do so. The vast vast majority seem to still have some mythical idea that private schools are like gold plated Hogwarts and everyone who attends them has a stick up their ass.. which isn't true.

If you want to talk about inequality in top jobs, you should talk about something like heightism. 90% of CEO's are above average height. Go hate on that.

It is far far more to do with ethos, mental attitude and parenting than it is to do with actual 'smartness'.

Eddie543 is not talking about smartness, but about privilege. Big difference.

Private schools do offer better education. Therefore they are more respected; Eton looks better on your CV than some anonymous inner-city Comprehensive in Hull. Of course pupils at Eton still have to work hard to earn their qualifications but they are also more likely to be raised in a nurturing environment that stimulates it. Their parents value education highly, and therefore generally so do the pupils.

And, of course, there is a bit of network privilege going on.

Some people are bright, hard-working and honest and get absolutely nowhere because they were born in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and never had the opportunities that you and I took for granted. It is an unfair and unequal world, Mankz. You got lucky. So did I (for different reasons). Sins of the parents, and all that, and the whole pattern is reiterative.

So be proud of your achievements, but not too proud. Our positions in life are half hard work, half luck and chance.

Eddie543 is not talking about smartness, but about privilege. Big difference.

Private schools do offer better education. Therefore they are more respected; Eton looks better on your CV than some anonymous inner-city Comprehensive in Hull. Of course pupils at Eton still have to work hard to earn their qualifications but they are also more likely to be raised in a nurturing environment that stimulates it. Their parents value education highly, and therefore generally so do the pupils.

And, of course, there is a bit of network privilege going on.

Some people are bright, hard-working and honest and get absolutely nowhere because they were born in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and never had the opportunities that you and I took for granted. It is an unfair and unequal world, Mankz. You got lucky. So did I (for different reasons). Sins of the parents, and all that, and the whole pattern is reiterative.

So be proud of your achievements, but not too proud. Our positions in life are half hard work, half luck and chance.

Not that I disagree with anything that you have said, but you often find that the people who haven't been born with the silver spoon in their mouth are the most driven to succeed and in many cases do.

The explanation behind this proverb goes like this: the first generation works extremely hard to build the family fortune; the second generation reaps the benefits; the third generation squanders it. While the second generation may see the benefits of their parents' hard work and build on it, the third generation takes their wealth for granted and squanders it.

This also works on a nation-wide scale. Depending on your age, your grandparents' generation was the last ones to experience real hardship. Your parents still remember living within very limited means. Yours is the first generation that experienced true affluence. Most people under the age of 40 who are well-off take that wealth for granted. This is partly why we are in a massive economical crisis: too much living on credit, not enough living within our means.

I was once told many moons ago that "70% of life is not what you know. It's who you know", Wish I could remember who passed that on to me, But looking around at the people who seem to occupy positions of mind boggling responsibility, I can see it hold's some amount of truth.

Ill not mention any names........

LOL, Just realized in "post preview" how funny that collection of pics is...

If you want to talk about inequality in top jobs, you should talk about something like heightism. 90% of CEO's are above average height. Go hate on that.

If only height guaranteed you a CEO role - I'm above average height!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexxo

There is an ancient Chinese proverb:

富 不过三代 (Fu bu guo san dai)"Wealth does not pass three generations"

The explanation behind this proverb goes like this: the first generation works extremely hard to build the family fortune; the second generation reaps the benefits; the third generation squanders it. While the second generation may see the benefits of their parents' hard work and build on it, the third generation takes their wealth for granted and squanders it.

So very true.

I can't count the number of our customers (IT support) that are small businesses started by either the current owners parent/s or their grand parents, and the third generation is always a spoilt *****, with the second generation being relatively hard working.

One of them, though, the second generation have done more for the business than the first - But of course they had a pretty decent company to start with.

The explanation behind this proverb goes like this: the first generation works extremely hard to build the family fortune; the second generation reaps the benefits; the third generation squanders it. While the second generation may see the benefits of their parents' hard work and build on it, the third generation takes their wealth for granted and squanders it.

This also works on a nation-wide scale. Depending on your age, your grandparents' generation was the last ones to experience real hardship. Your parents still remember living within very limited means. Yours is the first generation that experienced true affluence. Most people under the age of 40 who are well-off take that wealth for granted. This is partly why we are in a massive economical crisis: too much living on credit, not enough living within our means.

A lot of modern economic data proves this out. A vast majority of millionaires are first gen millionaires. Studies of famously rich families like the Kennedy's and Rockafellers show that their wealth is actually declining because the wealth gets diluted among a group of people who do not have the ambition and/or skill set that created the wealth in the first place.

__________________<Linear> "poor drainage is ruining my marriage".<My Wife> "I know everything, which is why you're in trouble all the time."<KNA - aka my hero>Chris, I'm not in your signature file.. can you rectify this anomaly please.<specofdust>More later, I have to go do something forbidden nowshutterdoggy.com

I'd be surprised if I wasn't a "millionaire" by the time I'm 60. That probably won't be enough to actually be considered rich by then.

No, not inflation but bad wording on my part. I used millionaire as a generic term for highest earning people in society over time. But your point does not fall on deaf ears.

__________________<Linear> "poor drainage is ruining my marriage".<My Wife> "I know everything, which is why you're in trouble all the time."<KNA - aka my hero>Chris, I'm not in your signature file.. can you rectify this anomaly please.<specofdust>More later, I have to go do something forbidden nowshutterdoggy.com

I was once told many moons ago that "70% of life is not what you know. It's who you know", Wish I could remember who passed that on to me, But looking around at the people who seem to occupy positions of mind boggling responsibility, I can see it hold's some amount of truth.

Ill not mention any names........

LOL, Just realized in "post preview" how funny that collection of pics is...

__________________<Linear> "poor drainage is ruining my marriage".<My Wife> "I know everything, which is why you're in trouble all the time."<KNA - aka my hero>Chris, I'm not in your signature file.. can you rectify this anomaly please.<specofdust>More later, I have to go do something forbidden nowshutterdoggy.com

Its amazing that, even after finding out that these ratings agencies were heavily colluding to the point of lying about their ratings leading up to the financial crisis, the news media, governments and financial companies give a **** about what they say now. Dont pay attention to these guys too much. They dont mean well for anyone.